Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39010923›Full record

ArticleRSC advances2024

Achieving efficient clonal beta cells transfection using nanostraw/nanopore-assisted electroporation.

Frida Ekstrand, Mokhtar Mapar, Sabrina Ruhrmann, Karl Bacos, Charlotte Ling, Christelle N Prinz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RSC advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Frida EkstrandDivision of Solid State Physics, NanoLund, Lund University 221 00 Lund Sweden christelle.prinz@ftf.lth.se.
Mokhtar MaparDivision of Solid State Physics, NanoLund, Lund University 221 00 Lund Sweden christelle.prinz@ftf.lth.se.
Sabrina RuhrmannEpigenetics and Diabetes Unit, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Department of Clinical Sciences, Scania University Hospital 214 28 Malmö Sweden.
Karl BacosEpigenetics and Diabetes Unit, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Department of Clinical Sciences, Scania University Hospital 214 28 Malmö Sweden.
Charlotte LingEpigenetics and Diabetes Unit, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Department of Clinical Sciences, Scania University Hospital 214 28 Malmö Sweden.
Christelle N PrinzDivision of Solid State Physics, NanoLund, Lund University 221 00 Lund Sweden christelle.prinz@ftf.lth.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1726-3275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prospect of being able to efficiently inject large plasmids in insulin-producing beta cells is very attractive for diabetes research. However, conventional transfection methods suffer from high cytotoxicity or low transfection efficiency, which negatively affect their outcome. In contrast, nanostraw electroporation is a gentle method that can provide a high transfection efficiency while maintaining high cell viability. While nanostraw electroporation has gone through some method optimization in the past, such as tuning the pulse frequency, amplitude, and duration, the effect of other parameters has not been thoroughly investigated. Here, we demonstrate efficient transfection of clonal beta cells and investigate the effect of voltage at a fixed inter-electrode distance, cell density, and cargo solution conductivity on transfection efficiency. We used GFP-encoding DNA plasmids stained with an intercalating dye to enable immediate analysis and assessment of the electrophoretic transport of cargo. Moreover, we ran simulations to assess how cargo buffer conductivity impacts the transfection efficiency by affecting the voltage drop on the nanostraws and cell membrane during electroporation. Both experiments and simulations show that MilliQ water as the cargo buffer yields the best transfection efficiency. We also show that the cell density should be adjusted to maximize the number of cells interfacing the nanostraws and avoid cell stacking. Finally, we compared the transfection efficiency when using nanostraws and nanopores. Whereas the amount of GFP plasmids injected using nanostraws is larger than for nanopores, the outcome in terms of GFP fluorescence 48 h after transfection was worse than for nanopores. Moreover, when using nanostraws, fewer cells were found on the substrate 48 h after transfection compared to when using nanopores. This suggests that injecting substantial amounts of plasmids in cells can affect their proliferation and/or viability, and that nanopore electroporation, as a simpler method, is an interesting alternative to nanostraws in achieving efficient and gentle clonal beta cell transfection.

Identifiers

PMID39010923
PMCPMC11247384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.